Agreed; but ICP has gotten filthy rich off of a relatively small and isolated but fanatically devoted fan base. Nobody ever went broke betting on the lowest common denominator of the American public.

you aren't saying it, but kinda implying it.

there's also lots of cases where terrible women get child custody, and only fought to get it for the support payments. Because kids are worth a lot in the American legal system.

I know a guy who married a woman who took out credit cards in his name, racked up ,000 in debt, then divorced him.

They never had children. It's his fault for being so stupid.

You might say he was asking for it.

Only ,000? That's getting off light compared to some of the stories I've heard. I had a Scottish Neighbor in Thailand that put about 50,000 into a real estate business in Thailand (Fairly lucrative, but Foreigners can't OWN a business, only their Thai spouse). I think you see where this is going. He started it, did the work for a few years with it, had a kid with the lady and then one day returned from a trip to find his locks changed, his cars sold off, the business shuttered and assets and wife and kid staying with family, filing divorce papers. He got to keep his suit case. Wound up stranded in Thailand, never making enough money to leave, just getting by on a teachers salary because anything with a white face and a pulse can get work there. Still there, I imagine, getting older in a place he hates.

That said, he was already like 60 when he married a 25-year-old woman in Thailand. I don't know what he expected.

More on topic, men and women are equal monsters and more often than not divorces that get real messy are because both sides are shitheads being led by the nose by even bigger shithead lawyers looking to score a larger slice. I've seen clean divorces before, WITH kids involved, WITHOUT lawyer involved more than the bare minimum. Not saying it's all lawyers fault, but it doesn't help when they both are throwing chum in the water.

PROBABLY BECAUSE OF A WOMAN!

There used to be ads for a "Father's Rights" divorce firm on the radio in Detroit that joked about how unfortunate it is that you can't just kill your ex like Henry VIII.

that radio spot needs to be here, STAT.

We might not believe it because statistically it's not true. After divorce women, on average, end up with much lower standards of living than their former husbands. Anecdotes aside, it's not the guys that usually get screwed.

cite your references, sukkas

I've heard of ridiculousness in either direction from divorce courts. Wheel of Justice.

There's SUPPOSED to be a bias in custody cases, and it's supposed to favor the children. No doubt this favors the women, and sometimes, unfairly, though you never see MRAs on the Internet even acknowledge the needs of children. It's always about them being screwed out of their rights.

If I was a man who wanted custody in a divorce case, I might consider a female attorney as a way to partially neutralize the bias that might exist, but not THIS attorney! I'd be too afraid that the judge had seen her misogynist commercial.

>>there's also lots of cases where terrible women get child custody, and only fought to get it for the support payments. Because kids are worth a lot in the American legal system.

Can you cite anything for that? Child support is supposed to be based on the expenses of child rearing, and it's supposed to go to the kids, and if it doesn't, that's actionable, and possibly criminal-- and even if there's a little discretionary money left over, how much is that in comparison to the effort of raising children for twenty years? If she doesn't really care about the children, which is what you're implying, that can't be an easy payday.

Pretty much. You know why there's a bias toward the mother in child custody and child support in the courts?

Because a shitload of asshole fathers abandoned their families and left them to starve to death or, you know, whatever, in the gutters. Or occasionally kicked the mother/wife out to do that, and shuttled the kids off somewhere they wouldn't have to pay any attention to them.

A shitload of them. For a long time.

Enough that it was a pretty serious problem for society. So society instituted those biases in the courts, in an attempt to keep kids from starving to death or being entirely neglected.

But no, it's clearly all some sort of massive overreaching feminist conspiracy put in place by the feminists that run society in all aspects, against whom the MRA are brave and self-sacrificing crusaders against all odds.

...yeah, you're an idiot.

Maybe you lucked out on having a good mother, but not everyone does, and having a vagina instead of a penis doesn't guarantee parenting ability or even caring about kids.

Sorry if thinking the well being of the kids should come first in those kinds of situations makes me an 'MRA crusader' in your eyes.

And "society instituted those biases" is the dumbest fucking thing I've seen someone say in a long time. Really, just please, walk into traffic.

I always thought the "mother-gets-the-kids" bias was just another side-effect of the misogynist patriarchy. Y'know.."wimmenz raise the baybeez while menz go out and be important."

There should never be a "default" main parent based on genitalia.

>>There should never be a "default" main parent based on genitalia.

I think it has more to do with breasts than genitals. I'm prepared to accept as a hypothesis that culture grows out of biology to such an extent that the mother is the best parent for a child the majority of the time, but there shouldn't be a default. People vary widely. Every kid's life deserves to be shaped by a decision that comes out of inquiry and thought.